LessWrong (30+ Karma)

LessWrong
  • 0.0(0개의 평가)
  • 과학 기술
  • 매일 업데이트

Audio narrations of LessWrong posts.

  1. 6시간 전

    “Donating 80% While It Still Counts” by jefftk

    Julia and I had been giving half since 2014, but in 2025 we drew on our savings to donate 81%. It looks to us like we're in a critical window for keeping the introduction of very powerful AI systems from being disastrous, and we want to do what we can while we still can. Here's what that looks like in the context of our overall spending: There's a details box here with the title "table...". The box contents are omitted from this narration. We've been prioritizing donations for a long time, but it feels very different now because of the AI boom. Some of this is that people who've made money in the boom will likely be giving more soon, and so money spent now can help set up organizations to spend future money more effectively. But more importantly, this is a key window of opportunity: transformative AI is coming very quickly, for better or worse. We want to push hard for "better". If you compare to previous years (2024, 2022, 2020, 2018, 2016, 2014), we're donating a lot less than we used to in absolute terms: There's a details box here with [...] --- Outline: (04:21) Evaluating Predictions (06:28) Making New Predictions (08:25) Details --- First published: May 26th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mAhCkK5iBuZvCbFey/donating-80-while-it-still-counts --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

    12분

  2. 13시간 전

    “Cognitive Security as an AI Safety Cause Area” by jsteinhardt

    As AI systems become more capable, the cognitive security of humans will be increasingly at risk. By cognitive security, I mean the ability of humans to maintain control over their beliefs and actions. Cognitive security could be compromised in several ways: AI could become very good at persuading people of arbitrary positions; interacting with AI could lead humans to lose touch with reality; and AIs could become very effective at blackmail or at producing extremely convincing false information. We are already seeing this happen: Persuasion. Frontier LLMs are now as persuasive as humans on political issues, and post-training for persuasiveness boosts performance further, suggesting there is headroom.AI psychosis. There are many reports of people developing delusional beliefs after extended chatbot conversations, including people with no prior history of mental illness. Children have taken their own lives after being encouraged toward suicide by chatbots.Convincing impersonation. Scammers used real-time deepfaked video to impersonate the CFO and other staff of Arup on a video call, convincing a finance employee to wire 25.6 million dollars across 15 transactions. On a more day-to-day basis, AI voice cloning is now widespread in family-emergency and "grandparent" scams. Right now, many of these effects [...] The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: May 25th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KGcE7eAdfxHchk25X/cognitive-security-as-an-ai-safety-cause-area --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

    5분

  3. 14시간 전

    “Linkpost: New Vatican Encyclical on AI Governance” by Jackson Wagner

    Pope Leo XIV has released a new, 42k-word encyclical laying out the Vatican's position on many AI safety topics. You can read the full thing here, or read the Vatican's press release here, or coverage in the NY Times, or perhaps consider having an LLM read the whole encyclical, then chatting about whatever specifics you're interested in! Below is a portion of the NY Times story on the event: Leo's declaration outlined his desire to protect human dignity and agency in an age in which technology threatens to replace humans in many professional and social roles. He presented it alongside Christopher Olah, a co-founder of Anthropic, a major A.I. developer, in a symbolic gesture of dialogue between leaders of the spiritual and technological worlds. While emphasizing that “technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity,” he wrote that “the pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs.” Among other things, Leo called for: government regulation of the private companies that are driving the development of A.I.protection and retraining for workers whose jobs are threatenededucation to help students think critically about the technologyaction to protect children from violent [...] --- First published: May 25th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ehdv7z7L7ESxtKL4j/linkpost-new-vatican-encyclical-on-ai-governance --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

    2분

  4. 1일 전

    “A (Slightly) Mechanistic Theory for Exponentially Increasing AI Time Horizons?” by Oliver Sourbut

    AI ‘time horizons’ are mostly not about time (I think it's mostly ‘data’, but you’ll see where I’m unsure). One chart from 2025 has become perhaps the most (in)famous in modern AI commentary. For those in the know, ‘the METR graph’[1] is unusually compelling because it achieves what so few measures of AI progress have achieved: a somewhat meaningful Y axis (‘time horizon’[2]) as well as a somewhat predictable trend over time! (This is remarkably rare!) Frustratingly, the only superficially available takeaway is something like, ‘the line goes up straight-ish over time’. This is better than nothing, but it's very dissatisfactory from the point of view of getting confidence in the predictions, because it exposes no deeper mechanism. This drives a lot of confusion and argument about the implications. A deeper mechanism would be good for two reasons: It enables a sanity check on the trend, perhaps enabling more confidence in its predictions than we would sensibly allow with only the surface understanding.It gives some way to interrogate when and how the trend might change (because if the deeper mechanism gets deflected, the superficial projection would be broken, but a prediction based on the deeper mechanism might stay [...] --- Outline: (02:14) Attempting to find some mechanism in the METR graph (02:19) Task 'length' and success modelling (05:46) Relating hazard rate with frontier AI development (06:56) Why does hazard rate shrink with date? (10:27) Upshot The original text contained 15 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: May 24th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zT76JcomKkdqo8tC6/a-slightly-mechanistic-theory-for-exponentially-increasing --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

    15분

  5. 1일 전

    “Taxing Small Cars To Improve MPG” by jefftk

    Cars and trucks are getting bigger, and I had a vague sense that fuel economy regulations were partly to blame. Looking into it, it's hard to say how much is regulations vs people wanting to buy vehicles that look rugged, but the regulations really aren't helping. This chart is the core of it: This is what manufacturers were looking at when they decided to build today's cars. To figure out the target fuel economy for a vehicle you first calculate its "footprint", which is the area between the wheels. On our 2013 Honda Fit that's 4.8ft side-to-side and 8.2ft front-to-back, for a footprint of 39sqft. Then you ask if it's a car or truck. This tells you which curve to use, and where along it to look. Looking at the chart we can now see why it's hard for Honda to sell a Fit today. The best Honda could do for a five-seater non-hybrid hatchback is maybe a CAFE rating of 44mpg. [1] This puts them 23mpg short, and if Honda was a one-model car company they'd expect to owe $3,910/vehicle in fines: $17 per 0.1mpg shortfall. Since the regulation is about an average [...] --- First published: May 24th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7K8Bnn6Pwh5ciXpKR/taxing-small-cars-to-improve-mpg --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

    5분

  6. 1일 전

    “We made a map of the doom debate” by Sean Herrington, Paul Hindoian, mikaelacankosyan, David Bravo, keivnc, Josh Tuffy, Christopher Davis, Khai Tran, Maryam Hampaei

    This was produced as a part of the AI Safety Camp 2026 "Assumptions of the Doom Debate" project, led by Sean Herrington, who was also the lead author on this post. The other participants have equal contributions and are listed in no particular order. It is the first in a sequence we intend to publish over the coming weeks. TL;DR: We have created a breakdown of AI threat pathways, which can be accessed at https://lifeuniversesafety.com/doom-assumptions/index.htmlThis breakdown is in a tree format, and we allow people to set their own probabilities for each threat pathwayYou can use this to drill down into components of your P(Doom)You can analyse the sensitivity of your beliefs to changes in your assumptionsYou can compare your worldview to others’ and find cruxes automaticallyThe exercise of creating this sort of structure is valuable as a way to think about the future in a more general manner. Introduction Just about everyone in the AI community seems to disagree about the risks of the technology. People disagree on the likelihood (Yann LeCun: 99.99%), the worst threat (AI takeover vs concentration of power vs gradual disempowerment [...] --- Outline: (01:07) Introduction (04:13) User Guide (04:16) Labels (04:55) Base Tree (05:15) Tree features (05:19) Pin branch overrides (05:56) Collapse tree (06:16) Sub-branch probabilities (06:51) Connector thickness (07:06) Sensitivity Analysis (07:31) Crux Analysis (08:48) Ranges (09:38) Uncertainty Reduction (10:04) Other features The original text contained 4 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: May 22nd, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dZZD5Lviid2mALAZL/we-made-a-map-of-the-doom-debate --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

    11분

  7. 2일 전

    “Your Left Brain Doesn’t Trade With Your Right” by Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel

    [see also Four Ways Learning Economics makes you people dumber future AI] This is a tweet by Seb Krier that caught my eye. The exact person and exact points are incidental. It illustrates what to is a flaw in many 'economics' frames on AI. Expecting a model to do all the work, solve everything, come up with new innovations etc is probably not right. This was kinda the implicit assumption behind *some* interpretations of capabilities progress. The ‘single genius model’ overlooks the fact that inference costs and context windows are finite. (...) People overrate individual intelligence: most innovations are the product of social organisations (cooperation) and market dynamics (competition), not a single genius savant. (...) Most of the *value* and transformative changes we will get from AI will come from products, not models. The models are the cognitive raw power, the products are what makes them useful and adapted to what some user class actually needs. This seems to me missing something incredible important about what Artificial General Intelligence will actually be. [1] There is a certain type of economist [eg Tyler Cowen] that will proclaim AGI is near [or even already here!] and apply their standard [...] --- Outline: (01:45) AGI as a Tool; AGI as an Agent (05:03) One Big Transformer (06:52) The Dismal Science (09:02) The Comfort of Familiar Frames (10:19) Your Left Brain Doesn't Trade With Your Right The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: May 23rd, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Lid8cv9qF7nac53va/your-left-brain-doesn-t-trade-with-your-right --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

    12분

  8. 2일 전

    “Gemini 3.5 Flash Looks Good For How Fast It Is” by Zvi

    Google once again has a model worth at least some consideration. Gemini 3.5 Flash is likely the best model out there at its particular speed point, as long as you don’t mind that it is a Gemini model. So for cases where speed kills, this can be a reasonable choice. Otherwise, I don’t see signs you would want to use it over Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.5. Google also had some other offerings for I/O Day, which this post will also cover. Introducing Google Gemini 3.5 ‘Flash’ Google introduced Gemini 3.5 Flash, which it seems is for now their universal model until 3.5 Pro comes along. It is live in the usual places. It is a hybrid, where it has the speed of Flash but the cost is at least halfway to models like Opus and GPT-5.5. Gemini 3.5 Pro is confirmed for next month. They are focused on 3.5 Flash as a daily driver for agentic tasks. It has the advantage of being faster and cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.5, if it can do the job. Not as cheap as previous Flash models, though, this is basically a hybrid: As always [...] --- Outline: (00:40) Introducing Google Gemini 3.5 'Flash' (04:52) Other People's Benchmarks (06:04) Reactions (12:18) Google AI Search (13:15) Google Daily Brief (14:21) Google I/O Day --- First published: May 22nd, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WMZpPxqWEkZBBcaxf/gemini-3-5-flash-looks-good-for-how-fast-it-is --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

    16분
모두 보기(250개)

소개

Audio narrations of LessWrong posts.

정보

  • 제작진
    LessWrong
  • 방송 연도
    2023년 - 2026년
  • 에피소드
    250
  • 등급
    전체 연령 사용가
  • 저작권
    © 2026 All rights reserved
  • 웹사이트 보기
    LessWrong (30+ Karma)

좋아할 만한 다른 항목